> But I'm interested to know if the good people of this list are aware
> of specific tasks/duties on en:wp that are woefully understaffed at
> the moment. Things that really need doing.
> Y-E-S spells YES and you are now it.
> Articles with Unsourced Claims
I did what I thought was the best kind of search on en:wp relating to
your reply, and it returns a lot of salient, but not specific project,
I found this:
Earlier on today I found the 'RFC' pages.
I'm interested in dispute resolution. I quite like the idea of getting
involved in arguments as someone who, basically, doesn't know their
arse from their elbow as regards the dispute that's in progress.
For example, there's some big argument going on to do with the History
of Transylvania... I have absolutely no interest in the history of
Transylvania at all, so I try to bring the contentious parties back to
the specific point of what they're arguing about, and then try to
draw the discussion back to Wikipedia policies, mainly verifiability.
If you can give me a link to a specific (project) page that you're
thinking of with regard to unsourced claims, please do.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - Mark
Since Citizendium is all the rage on this mailing list, a review and
comparison of Alexa stats seemed like a good idea. Here's how things stack
(Percent of global Internet users who visit the site, 3 month average)
Of course, the numbers vary a bit depending on what ranking service one
selects. But not by all that much. It's been two and a half years since
Citizendium's launch. The project has 10,500 articles and slightly over 100
approved articles. English Wikipedia topped 100,000 articles in January
2003, just about two years after launch. In January 2004 English Wikipedia
reached 200,000 articles. Arguably, Citizendium both gains and loses by
launching later: the site can draw upon a large pool of existing free
content at Wikipedia, but Wikipedia had already become a prominent website
by the time Citizendium started.
With respect extended toward Larry Sanger and his undertaking, a few
questions are worth asking:
1. Is Citizendium a snapshot of what Wikipedia's growth would have been, if
Larry Sanger had remained with the project?
2. Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within the next five years?
3. Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder claims
regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor?
It's great to see more and more people re-using Wikipedia content. such as this: http://euobserver.com/9/28232
However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of attribution is "(Photo: wikipedia)"
If not, is there a group of people somewhere who chase up copyvios like this?
Just out of interest, what is "doing it right" in this context. Is a link to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Houses_of_Parliament.jpg plus an extended text along the lines of, say, the bottom of http://www.answers.com/topic/bahrain-football-club required?
I've seen (source:Wikipedia) quoted a few times on media pictures now.
----- "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 4 June, 2009 21:55:23 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GDFL compliance
> 2009/6/4 Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>:
> > It's great to see more and more people re-using Wikipedia content. such as this: http://euobserver.com/9/28232
> > However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of attribution is "(Photo: wikipedia)"
> > If not, is there a group of people somewhere who chase up copyvios like this?
> Usually if someone (preferably the creator) contacts them suggesting
> how to do it right, places are keen to get it right. Asking nicely and
> reasonably is effective in practice.
> - d.
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia.
My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that
the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate*
make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful
as unified value based on both.
The slog rate is important simply because we naturally want it to
go down, and not up. My sense is that 8.5% is about where it has
been for a couple years now, but that it's still too high, and as such
we need to figure out ways to lower that number.
Not exactly my point.
First god creates a regular stone, which god can do.
Now we can all admit that god, once god has created a green stone, could
change the color of the stone from green to red.
So this shows that god can change a *property* of a pre-existent object.
If "crushable" is a property, then why cannot god change this property to
"uncrushable". It is just a property like size, color, density, etc.
If crushable is not a property, then what is it.
God is not creating the uncrushable stone, god is simply changing a
property of a object god previously created.
In a message dated 7/30/2009 4:37:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
One is that he is creating something that he
cannot do, and then contradicting himself by proving himself incapable of
the first act.
**************Hot Deals at Dell on Popular Laptops perfect for Back to
"Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet?"
' Yet in the last few months, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has
been engulfed in a furious debate involving psychologists who are
angry that the 10 original Rorschach plates are reproduced online,
along with common responses for each. For them, the Wikipedia page is
the equivalent of posting an answer sheet to next year’s SAT.
They are pitted against the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia’s
users, who share the site’s “free culture” ethos, which opposes the
suppression of information that it is legal to publish. (Because the
Rorschach plates were created nearly 90 years ago, they have lost
their copyright protection in the United States.)'
'Trudi Finger, a spokeswoman for Hogrefe & Huber Publishing, the
German company that bought an early publisher of Hermann Rorschach’s
book, said in an e-mail message last week: “We are assessing legal
steps against Wikimedia,” referring to the foundation that runs the
Skip to next paragraph
“It is therefore unbelievably reckless and even cynical of Wikipedia,”
she said, “to on one hand point out the concerns and dangers voiced by
recognized scientists and important professional associations and on
the other hand — in the same article — publish the test material along
with supposedly ‘expected responses.’ ”
Mike Godwin, the general counsel at Wikimedia, hardly sounded
concerned, saying he “had to laugh a bit” at the legal and ethical
arguments made in the statement from Hogrefe.
Hogrefe licenses a number of companies in the United States to sell
the plates along with interpretative material. One such distributor,
Western Psychological Services, sells the plates themselves for $110
and a larger kit for $185.'
I'm starting to think maybe the Signpost or Foundation should start
soliciting donations from Noam Cohen - he only ever seems to write
based on them...
Todays New Scientist (vol 203 no 2718 page 20/21) has an interesting article
on the veracity of online medical information; with several somewhat
inconsistent references to wikipedia.
It admits that several studies have found us "almost entirely free of
factual errors", though does criticise us for incompleteness, alleging that
some drug firms have been removing negative info about their products. But
it also finds it disconcerting that 50% of doctors use Wikipedia.
It ends with the assertion that "The Wikipedia of the future, it seems,
looks set to become a far more reputable place." Having quoted one pundit
who thought it would be easier to improve wikipedia.
One interesting contrast is with sites that only allow qualified Doctors to
edit them, but it seems that New Scientist's current substantive criticism
is our incompleteness, not our veracity.
A few years ago, I had asked that IRC have a searchable archive of
discussions. I was told that there were daily logs and I could get one if I
asked. I asked, and was denied. Until IRC commits itself to openness, it
should have little to no impact on any facet of our project. Without searchable
archives, IRC is not open in the modern sense, regardless of who or how
you can join it, or view it. The archives of this mailing list are
In a message dated 7/30/2009 8:21:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
The IRC Group Contacts decided last year to hold a surgery every three
months where general IRC matters could be brought up for discussion in
an environment in which IRC people able to put those into action
(which includes all the contacts themselves) were present and
involved. Regrettably it took just over a year for the second meeting
to be organised, but this pattern will not be repeated!
Therefore we invite you to visit
and sign up for the meeting if you are someone interested in how IRC
runs and especially if you are responsible for one or more channels.
That page will shortly contain procedural information on how we intend
to structure the meeting to get the most out of it. For convenience, I
shall note that the meeting is at 1900Z on 3rd August 2009 in
#wikimedia-irc-meetings on freenode.
Sean Whitton (seanw on IRC)
For the IRC Group Contacts
I have posted this message to the main public mailing lists to which I
subscribe and would appreciate circulation of the meeting's existence
to as many other languages/projects as possible as this is open to all
- but please note that the meeting will be held in English.
Sean Whitton / <sean(a)silentflame.com>
OpenPGP KeyID: 0x25F4EAB7
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
**************Hot Deals at Dell on Popular Laptops perfect for Back to